On 4/20/11 8:05 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> On 19 April 2011 22:39, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> Could someone from the Council please give this a quick sanity check? I
>> have a revised version of XEP-0198 ready to publish if we decide this is
>> right.
>>
Thanks for the review.
> I believe we ought to:
>> - Flip the ordering of the server replies in example 16
Ah, that raises a question about the order of handling stanzas and SM
elements. In this case I agree with you, but I wonder if we need to call
out the general principle.
> - The client is under no obligation to send <a> in example 17 (the
> server did not send <r>), perhaps note this?
Will do.
> - Bump h from 0 to 1 in example 17 (as Yann spotted)
> - Bump h from 1 to 2 in example 19
Yes, that's the sanity check. Thanks.
> - There are still some references to
to...? ;-)
> There's something odd, the changelog says the 'stanzas' attribute has
> been removed (as we agreed on), but it is still there...
It seems that we neglected to remove it from one of the examples.
Incomplete scrubbing. Fixed in my working copy.
> also the diff
> tool shows changes in references from 3920bis to 6120, yet the latest
> version on xmpp.org claims to be 1.2 but still has no reference to
> 6120. Ideas?
Last week I went through all the XEPs to update the RFC references, but
I haven't rendered those updates on the website because I wanted to run
the equivalent of all.py, yet there is no such beast.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6105 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110420/5e34937c/attachment.bin>